HAR JAS DEV SINGH versus STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.

Citation: [1974] 1 S.C.R. 281 · Decided: 25-07-1973 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
281 
HAR JAS DEV SINGH 
v. 
STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. 
July 25, 1973 
[P. ]AGANMOHAN REDDY, H. R. KHANNA & V. R. KRISHNA !YER, JJ.] 
Maintetiancc of Internal Security Act, (26 of 1911)-Section 14(2)-Fresh 
facts, .what are-Order of detention served while in confinement under Of}7cial 
Secrets A ct-Order subsequently revoked-Thereafter released on hail-Second 
order of detention on identical grounds-If release on bail and varia1ion in thl 
enumeration oj prejudicial acts amount to fresh facts. 
\\'hile the petitioner was in confinement under section 3 of the Official Secrets 
Act, 1923. an order of detention, made under section 3 of the 
Mo.1int1!nance 
of 
InternaJ Securit\ Act. 1971. was served on him. 
The order expir~J since ·that 
was not approved by the State 
government. 
Thereafter 
the 
petitioner was 
released on bail. 
Aft~r his release on bail a fresh order of detention was passed. 
The detention was approved by the Advisory Board and the State Government 
confirmed the order. 
The grounds of detention served on the ·petitioner were identical 
with 
the 
grounds on which lhe first order of .detention \Vas based except that ground No. 
7 stated that since the petitioner waS released on bail he was likdy to continue 
his spying activities which would be highly prejudicial to the security of the State. 
Another difference was that in the first order of detention "Security of the State" 
and maintenance of Pubiic Order w.::re mentioned bu. in the seconJ order only 
"isecurity of the State" was mentioned. 
The petitioner urged that since the grounds which formed the basis of the 
fiist order of detention were identical with the grounds for d taining him under 
the subsequent order. the latter order was bad and his detention was illegal. The 
respond nt·State contended that since the petitioner was in jail at th_ time when 
the first order was served on him and revoked, his subsequ n· 
rel:-ase on bail 
constituted a fresh fact. 
It was further urged on behalf of the State 
that the 
Act made a distinction between grounds and facts and that while grounds niust 
have a nexus with the object of the order of detention facts stated therein need 
not necessarily have that nexus. 
On the question whether the two variations from the first order of detention 
can be construed as "fresh facts" justifying the Lmpurmed dc:=tention within the 
meaning of section 14(2) of the Act. [289E] 
HELD : There being no fresh facts on which the impugned detention order 
i! made the order is invalid and the detention of the petitioner cannot be sustain-
ed. 
( i) After the date on which the order ceased to be in force, unless fresh facts 
had ansen on the basis of which the Central Government or the State Govern-
mc:=nt or an Officer, as the case may be, was satisfied that such an order should be 
made the subsequent detention on the very same grounds would be invalid. 
[287C] 
Masood v. Union, W.P. Nos. 469 & 470 of 1972 decided Jan. II, 1973; Hadt 
Bardu Das v. District Magistrate [1969] 1 S. C.R. 227 referred to. 
(ii) While it is true that 'grounds' and "facts" are used in opposition to ea::h 
other they must be taken as ref~rring to two different things. 
The grounds are 
concl~s1ons ot fact or reasons which have induced the detailing authority to pass 
the order of detention. 
These are sometimes referred to as basic facts. 
Facts, 
however, constitute the evidence upon which the conclusion~ justifying the deten .. 
tion are made. [288B] 
State of Bombay v. Atma Ram Vaidya (1951] S.C.R. 157; Ram Krisluzn v. 
State of Delhi [19531 S.C.R. 708 referred to. 
282 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
( 1974] 1 S.C.R. 
. 
!h.ere may be f<~cts which are not germane or are not relevant to the grounds 
1ust1fy1ng the detention and when section 14 refers to "fresh facts" it does not 
refer to facts which are not relevant but or such fresh facts on which the detain~ 
ing authority is satisfied that an order 01 detention should be. made. 
1£ the fresh 
facts cannot form the basis of a conclusion on which the detention order can be 
made, then those facts are not fresh facts 
which will 
justify 
the 
de.aining 
authority _to make an order of detention. 
A fresh order of detention can only 
be made 1f fresh grounds came into existence after the expiry or revocation of 
the earlier order of detention. No fresh order could be made on the 
ground 
which existed prior to the revocation or expiry of an earlier order of detention. 
Parliament h
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.